 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / July 2006(July, 24th) Picture of the Week
Hello, The picture of the week in color this time, and by night. http://www.monochromatique.com/photosemaine/ Regards,  Signature<> Daniel Rocha | Photographie <> http://www.monochromatique.com > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Regards, Horizon is crooked and there is too much grain in the sky with vignetting. If thats the effect you wanted then you succeeded but it is not effective. Yet another crap photo of the week. >> Hello, >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If thats the effect you wanted then you succeeded but it is not effective. > Yet another crap photo of the week. hmmm and I wonder why poepole don't often post photo's here...... very nice attempt.... horizon is an issue... enough to be very noticaeable... not enough to be arty! nicely exposed for difficult subject matter. you seemed undecided as to what you wanted to show... a busy crossing... car lights or a building.... a bit more to the left and a strong line would have been included (the road) that would lead the viewer from a person in front... up the right and eventually around to that magnificent building. as for grain in the sky...... pretty hard to tell in an image that size though it would spoil the image if it was excessive nice contrast of the strong yellow lighting and the vibrant blue sky... makes the image very strong! kosh Fred skrev: >> Hello, >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> Regards, > Yet another crap photo of the week. Do you think your inferiority feeling disappears by being rude to other people? SignatureMed venlig hilsen, Ole Larsen. New Images And Design, june 2006 http://Olelarsen.eu/ http://home.tiscali.dk/muggler > Fred skrev: >>> Hello, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Do you think your inferiority feeling disappears by being rude to other > people? Considering this fool posts really sh.t photos then yes it does. I actually feel quite superior critiquing this fool's pictures of the week because by posting them as picture of the week he thinks they are special and awaits praise which is undeserved. So no I'm not being rude I';m being honest. P.s nice snippage of the reasons I gave for his photos being crap. This makes your post irrelevant. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred" <fred@ner.com> Newsgroups: aus.photo Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 12:01 AM Subject: Re: (July, 24th) Picture of the Week *more crap* >> Fred skrev: >>>> Hello, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Considering this fool posts really sh.t photos then yes it does. Nice balanced view Fred. Where are your shots mate? > I actually feel quite superior critiquing this fool's pictures of the week > because by posting them as picture of the week he thinks they are special > and awaits praise which is undeserved. I'm sure you do want to feel superior, but really deep down you are not feeling so good are you? > So no I'm not being rude I';m being honest. Actually, you're being insecure. This at the very least is quite clear. Cheers, Dave E > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Fred" <fred@ner.com> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Cheers, > Dave E Armchair psychology one of your specialities? I'm sorry you failed armchair psychology. *shakes head* >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Fred" <fred@ner.com> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > I'm sorry you failed armchair psychology. > *shakes head* Actually I've never considered the psychology of any of my armchairs. :-P I was being a bit harsh to you back there but I think Mr Rocha deserves a little better. At least the guy is out there having a go. Like his shots or not, there is always something to be learned from an image even if it is something to avoid when you're out there blazing away. Cheers, Dave E >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Fred" <fred@ner.com> >> Newsgroups: aus.photo >> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 12:01 AM >> Subject: Re: (July, 24th) Picture of the Week *more crap* >>>>> Yet another crap photo of the week. >>>> Do you think your inferiority feeling disappears by being rude >>>> to other people? >>> Considering this fool posts really sh.t photos then yes it does. >> Nice balanced view Fred. Where are your shots mate? > Armchair psychology one of your specialities? > I'm sorry you failed armchair psychology. > *shakes head* > Aus.Photo has sunk to a new low when it was already at it's lowest point. The whole purpose of "groups" is to provide a forum where like minded people can exchange views. Whoever you are "Fred" you have demonstrated there is no limit to the depth of rudeness participants in this group will sink to. If you actually had any examples of your work or even an identity with which we could relate, you may have credibility. As it is, you join a list of Australians rapidly getting a reputation for really poor form. Give it up, mate. You are giving the whole country a bad reputation. Hiding behind anonomous names and forged headers may have merit when you are a legitimate citizen being targeted by people like you but when the shoe is on the other foot, you are just a newsgroup vandal. >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Fred" <fred@ner.com> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > you are a legitimate citizen being targeted by people like you but when > the shoe is on the other foot, you are just a newsgroup vandal. No I'm not. I just don't see why this fool calls his photos "picture of the week" and makes them out to be something that they are not. If you bothered to read my original reply I *did* provide some constructive criticism but all you jackals seem to do is to concentrate on the word *crap* how very unaustralian of you. >> Fred skrev: >>>> Hello, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > P.s nice snippage of the reasons I gave for his photos being crap. > This makes your post irrelevant. Where are your pictures FUCKWIT You post all this sh.t and not once show us your handy work w.nker you are >>> Fred skrev: >>>>> Hello, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > w.nker you are Where are yours? Quick to attack the critic but not quick to back up your own words. so far you have called me a cocksmoker a fuckwit and a w.nker yet not once have I derided the original poster, but i will deride his work yet all you seem to do is attack the person,, grow up child. Stick that in your cock and smoke it. > Considering this fool posts really sh.t photos then yes it does. I have a lot to learn. And I wish to (one day) learn in viewing your pictures. Signature<> Daniel Rocha | Photographie <> http://www.monochromatique.com >>Considering this fool posts really sh.t photos then yes it does. > > I have a lot to learn. And I wish to (one day) learn in viewing > your pictures. Best come back this year >> Considering this fool posts really sh.t photos then yes it does. > > I have a lot to learn. And I wish to (one day) learn in viewing > your pictures. Yes, there's a subtle point somewhere in there... :-) Cheers, Dave E (Sydney) > Yes, there's a subtle point somewhere in there... :-) I think too. Another point My website is moving to a new host. For the moment it's not online but I hope all be fixed today. Signature<> Daniel Rocha | Photographie <> http://www.monochromatique.com >> Considering this fool posts really sh.t photos then yes it does. > > I have a lot to learn. And I wish to (one day) learn in viewing > your pictures. Couldn't agree more. Keep up posting. And learning. As all of us do. Rutger Signaturehttp://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager/ (...) > Couldn't agree more. Keep up posting. And learning. As all of us do. Thanks Rutger. For sure we have a lot of to learn. Except some guyz... Signature<> Daniel Rocha | Photographie <> http://www.monochromatique.com > (...) >> Couldn't agree more. Keep up posting. And learning. As all of us do. > > Thanks Rutger. For sure we have a lot of to learn. > > Except some guyz... I'm reminded of Kym Gyngell's stuck-up art critic character on the Australian comedy series Full Frontal whose appraisal of just about everything was "Crap!" or "More crap!". -- MM >> Fred skrev: >>>> Hello, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > P.s nice snippage of the reasons I gave for his photos being crap. > This makes your post irrelevant. Why don't you prove your point ? post some photograph's which are demonstrably yours . > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Regards, going back a few pics on the site to a b&W with a bride..... do you really think it means you got a great shot when a photographer set it up along with the site and you just grabbed a set-up photo.... original photographer included? a punishable offence...... ignore my kind workds in the ealier post... their crap. kosh >> Hello, >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > kosh Your apology is accepted. >>> Hello, >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Your apology is accepted.\ He didn't say Sorry for FRED being a cock smoker >>>> Hello, >>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > He didn't say Sorry for FRED being a cock smoker Speaking from experience are we? ;) >>>>> Hello, >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Speaking from experience are we? > ;) nope... it was still pretty harsh... the original post that is!- kosh > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Regards, That is one of the best pictures I have ever seen posted on the internet Keep up the good work ****** > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Regards, Hi Daniel, I rarely comment but I will this time. Clearly you have a degree of talent and discipline, and that you are out there doing this in a disciplined manner says something else about you, something that clearly lacks in many who like to call themselves "photographers". In the past I have expressed wonderment at your often uninteresting subject choices - all in my humble opinion of course. I'm sure many would say the same to me! Posting your images regularly as you do creates debate - not always constructive or indeed positive, but you are doing this and most others are not - I include myself, at least for now - so good on you. For sure I'm at a loss sometimes to see anything in images that others rave about but that's what makes this world so interesting I guess. As for this particular image, I'd like to make a few points: - the 'Dutch tilt' works here for me - it suggests the viewer is in motion and is more engaged in the scene than just as an observer, thought you'd have to be about 7'6" to have this perspective! - for me, this is an image better in B&W. The colour temperatures in the light sources worry me a bit - looking somewhat unnatural against the sky. - overall, for me it is a shot that stands on its own and though it could doubtless be improved (like most images), I like it for what it's worth! As a photographer always seeking to improve his work, observing shots that don't please are just as important as the inspirational images. For me Salgado is perhaps the greatest inspiration and I've said it to you before - I'd love to see you put yourself in some crumbling war-ravaged location (away from active war of course) to see what you come up with. In the meantime, thanks for being impervious enough to harsh criticism to throw your work open to us. Cheers, Dave E (Sydney, Australia) Hello Dave, > I rarely comment but I will this time. Clearly you have a degree of > talent and discipline, and that you are out there doing this in a > disciplined manner says something else about you, something that > clearly lacks in many who like to call themselves "photographers". Thanks Dave ! I appreciate. I don't call myself "photographer". I'm animated by the passion of photography. And do photography. I'm not worried about how I can call my photographs. I do them with my inspiration, nothing more. > In the past I have expressed wonderment at your often uninteresting > subject choices - all in my humble opinion of course. I'm sure many > would say the same to me! You know... Years ago I have never seen some subjets as enought interesting to make a serie of pictures... And today I found them interesting or enough to try to make something with them. I can't tell you that I succed in each picture but here they are. I like to make some more classics pictures like portrait. I love making portraits, or "photojournalism", but I like very much to try to make something different with some strange subjects, for trying to share an idea, concept or something else. > Posting your images regularly as you do creates debate - not always > constructive or indeed positive, but you are doing this and most > others are not - I include myself, at least for now - so good on you. For me it's a pleasure to make photographs and to talk about photography. Some non constructive debates don't want to talk about the subject but who cares ? Not me... :) > - the 'Dutch tilt' works here for me - it suggests the viewer is in > motion and is more engaged in the scene than just as an observer, > thought you'd have to be about 7'6" to have this perspective! I have taken the shoot not on the ground at the same level of the street. I have to made a choice of framing. But the point is that I can show in a "better" way the street itself. > - for me, this is an image better in B&W. The colour temperatures in > the light sources worry me a bit - looking somewhat unnatural against > the sky. I undeerstand... :) > - overall, for me it is a shot that stands on its own and though it > could doubtless be improved (like most images), I like it for what > it's worth! Thanks Dave ! > As a photographer always seeking to improve his work, observing shots > that don't please are just as important as the inspirational images. Right ! > For me Salgado is perhaps the greatest inspiration and I've said it > to you before - I remember. > I'd love to see you put yourself in some crumbling > war-ravaged location (away from active war of course) to see what you > come up with. Me too ! :) > In the meantime, thanks for being impervious enough to > harsh criticism to throw your work open to us. Thanks to you Dave. If I do it, it's because sometimes I can a very constructive contribution like yours. Regards, Daniel http://www.monochromatique.com/photosemaine/ Signature<> Daniel Rocha | Photographie <> http://www.monochromatique.com > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Regards, Daniel I like a lot of your pictures. Don't let the small minded posters of this group get you down. Imagine if they had children learning to talk or walk they would be abusing them for not doing it right first time. I like to take photos when I can and I class myself as a beginner and there is nothing worse then someone putting you down when you are learning This is one of my personal faves if you would like a look http://www.plus613.net/image/28277 Keep up the good work and remember it is free to post your pics of the week >> http://www.monochromatique.com/photosemaine/ (...) > Daniel I like a lot of your pictures. Thanks ! > Don't let the small minded posters of this group get you down. Sometimes I can't understand them, but I go forward... > Imagine if they had children learning to talk or walk they would be > abusing them for not doing it right first time. :) > This is one of my personal faves if you would like a look > http://www.plus613.net/image/28277 Nice colors. In France the weather is very hot. I will be happy if I can go on these beach ! :) > Keep up the good work and remember it is free to post your pics of > the week Thanks to you, for supporting me ! :) Signature<> Daniel Rocha | Photographie <> http://www.monochromatique.com >>> http://www.monochromatique.com/photosemaine/ > (...) [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> This is one of my personal faves if you would like a look >> http://www.plus613.net/image/28277 This group is unique in that it is the only one on Usenet devoted to photos yet all we get when someone posts one is flak from wannabes who anonymously, say things about other people and their efforts, they wouldn't dare say to their face or if their identity was known. It's time to call a stop to it. The jerk calling himself "Fred" is using an anonymous Italian news server which issues posts with mangled headers intended to prevent people making complaints about these jerks to their ISP. This "Fred" could well be a rival of Daniel's taking the opportunity to sink the boots in for a bit of entertainment. It's simply not on. Come out from under your rock "Fred" and identify yourself if you are going to criticize others. ---------------------- NNTP-Posting-Host: $$6dsnkabxhe0w5.news.x-privat.org Message-ID: <44c4d1e4_2@x-privat.org> Organization: X-Privat NNTP Server - http://www.x-privat.org Lines: 24 X-Authenticated-User: $$w11s1xndsuhxkoyemw X-Complaints-To: abuse@x-privat.org Although it probably won't do any good, I encourage other to complain to Italians who own the server. >>>> http://www.monochromatique.com/photosemaine/ >> (...) [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > Although it probably won't do any good, I encourage other to > complain to Italians who own the server. Exactly what are you going to complain about? the fact I think this photographer work is crap? Go right ahead I can just see these Italians pissing themselves laughing because in none of my posts have I been abusive, crossposted, spammed or broken any of the TOC of which I have joined. Mate you need a reality check. Fred....I support you 110%. At the end of the day, Daniel's photos are very poor quality. There is no point pussy farting around being nice saying "Oh yeh thats nice daniel" when clearly they suck. I suspect all these people sticking up for him and either really bad photographers themselves, or just not being honest. Don't let others deter you Fred from speaking your mind - I couldnt agree more with you. The sooner Daniel stops posting his rubbish the better off we will all be. I would hate to see what he deems his "photo of the year". >>>>> http://www.monochromatique.com/photosemaine/ >>> (...) [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > broken any of the TOC of which I have joined. > Mate you need a reality check. > Fred....I support you 110%. Lets start with a top post > At the end of the day, Daniel's photos are very poor quality. Next week can you please set up a webcam so we can all see Daniel enter your house and make you click the post he has made then make you click the link to his webpage. > There is no point pussy farting around being nice saying "Oh yeh thats nice > daniel" when clearly they suck. When have you posted a link to your photo's?? If you haven't here is your chance to show us how good you are > I suspect all these people sticking up for him and either really bad > photographers themselves, or just not being honest. As I posted yesterday all good photographers had to be bad at some stage > Don't let others deter you Fred from speaking your mind - I couldnt agree > more with you. The sooner Daniel stops posting his rubbish the better off > we will all be. I feel the same with the rubbish you post I would hate to see what he deems his "photo of the year". Once again show us your photo of the week? >>>>>> http://www.monochromatique.com/photosemaine/ >>>> (...) [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >> broken any of the TOC of which I have joined. >> Mate you need a reality check. > Fred....I support you 110%. > > At the end of the day, Daniel's photos are very poor quality. Natalie, what exactly do you mean when you say his photos are very poor quality? Not every shot is intended (or able) to win some award for fine art, photojournalism, landscape etc. etc... Not everyone is an esteemed professional with decades of hard core experience (as you surely are). In fact, if you were a professional, I doubt that you would have such blatant disregard for others trying to improve themselves. "Very poor quality" in this context assumes in part that the photographer missed his intention - do you know what his intention is? I've seen world press award winning images that would fail a glance test but given context are truly amazing and deeply moving. So you seem to be talking on a superficial level to me. > There is no point pussy farting around being nice saying "Oh yeh thats > nice daniel" when clearly they suck. Who said anything about being nice? It's more about being fair. Surely such a forum is about encouraging others and being encouraged - hopefully by comments a bit more useful than "your photos suck". How about "I think this photo sucks because... blah blah". Now that would take some photographic insight wouldn't it? If you don't care to comment on someone else's work, then pass it by. > I suspect all these people sticking up for him and either really bad > photographers themselves, or just not being honest. What does 'sticking up for him' mean? Your argument is base Natalie and to me this debate is more about this forum being a place for photographers to learn from and help each other than about it being an exclusive place for your version of suitably perfect photos. So where are yours? > Don't let others deter you Fred from speaking your mind - I couldnt agree > more with you. The sooner Daniel stops posting his rubbish the better off > we will all be. I would hate to see what he deems his "photo of the > year". Cheers, Dave E (Sydney) >>>>>> http://www.monochromatique.com/photosemaine/ >>>> (...) [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >> broken any of the TOC of which I have joined. >> Mate you need a reality check. > Who said anything about being nice? It's more about being fair. Surely > such a forum is about encouraging others and being encouraged - hopefully by > comments a bit more useful than "your photos suck". How about "I think this > photo sucks because... blah blah". Now that would take some photographic > insight wouldn't it? If you don't care to comment on someone else's work, > then pass it by. If you read my initial post to the OP I *did* say that his photo was crap because blah blah blah. Yet all you Jackals latched onto "your photo is crap" and missed the rest. It's a 2 way street when you attack the critic just because the criticism is harsh. I'll critique photos as I see fit and if you don't like it may I suggest that the killfilter is there--------> I'm not changing my user name to circumvent killfiles so go right ahead. >> Who said anything about being nice? It's more about being fair. >> Surely such a forum is about encouraging others and being encouraged - [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > that the killfilter is there--------> > I'm not changing my user name to circumvent killfiles so go right ahead. I see no one has bothered to reply to this because the truth hurts doesn't it? Bunch of one eyed baying hyenas some of you. >>> Who said anything about being nice? It's more about being fair. >>> Surely such a forum is about encouraging others and being encouraged [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > doesn't it? > Bunch of one eyed baying hyenas some of you. Maybe they all took your advice and killfiled you you dumb bastard Who says killfile me and expects someone to respond you are the weakest link >>>> Who said anything about being nice? It's more about being fair. >>>> Surely such a forum is about encouraging others and being encouraged [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > you are the weakest link You responded. > At the end of the day, Daniel's photos are very poor quality. > > There is no point pussy farting around being nice saying "Oh yeh thats nice > daniel" when clearly they suck. That's pretty obvious. When there are SO many good photo's on the web now, why would anyone bother visiting his site more than once I wonder? > I suspect all these people sticking up for him and either really bad > photographers themselves, or just not being honest. I think they are just sticking up for his right to post whatever crap he likes on his web site. But for some reason they think others shouldn't post negative opinions. Personally I think he is free to post crap photos, and others are also free to call them crap if they want. MrT. > Fred....I support you 110%. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > rubbish the better off we will all be. I would hate to see what > he deems his "photo of the year". ------------ The only problem with your attitude Natalie is that following your idea of how it should be will result in complete vacation of poster to this group. Your assumptions about other people are wrong too. No one is "Sticking up" for Daniel. They are speaking out about some pretty poor opinion posting from an anonymous individual too fearful of being identified to use his real name, taking pot shots at those who are not. There was a time a few years ago when posters here had a few photographic issues to discuss. It's a real damnation of the development (if you can call it that) of Usenet that nasty people engaged in personal defamation, who hide their identity and steal other people's images to use for themselves have managed to pretty much take control of newsgroups. "Fred" might feel that calling a stranger a fool is not a personal insult. You might feel telling someone who has gone to a great deal of effort to put their pictures up for public viewing that their effort is "rubbish" is OK too. Use the functions of your news reader to block the sender. Don't make a whole nation look stupid with your childish remarks. The clear reality is that "Fred's" and your posts are crap. Your ISP (Optus) provided you with a free home page, why don't you use it to post some of your images so we can see if yours are crap too? Or is that like asking Fred to do the same? Creating a void of silence in reply? > The only problem with your attitude Natalie is that following your > idea of how it should be will result in complete vacation of poster [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of being identified to use his real name, taking pot shots at those > who are not. My issue with all this rubbish: Thank goodness not everyone sees things the same. Luckily we all see things differently, what may please or offend the eye of one person, doesn't equate to the opinions of all. Professional Photographers may look at photos with a more critical eye and their own bias comes to fore. This doesn't mean that the Average Joe doesn't like the photo, to him it may be very pleasing. As there are a lot more Average Joes than professional photographers, who can say who is right or wrong? I sometimes think some of you "photographers" are a little on the snobby side, or perhaps your noses are a little out of joint because so many people now have become interested in photography. Some of you are decidedly lacking in good manners and common courtesy, there are ways of giving a critique and then there are the down right rude remarks. Have you all turned into 'Milo" ? > Thank goodness not everyone sees things the same. > Luckily we all see things differently, what may please or offend the eye of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > side, or perhaps your noses are a little out of joint because so many people > now have become interested in photography. there is no wright or wrong... just an increasingly refined skill. Hence my original post with a few suggestion about eye-point etc. the only way to learn is through feedback.... no reason to can an image as crap without giveing a few reasons. Also I work in a lab.. I see crap every day... the image was somewhat better than that! though I still think posting a photo being set-up by another phtogrographer should not be posted as your own..... misrepresentation and all that stuff! It's one thing to do it at a wedding and record it for your own use... it's another to post it as your own! kosh >> Thank goodness not everyone sees things the same. >> Luckily we all see things differently, what may please or offend the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > kosh Have a google The photo was canned as crap with reasons. For the bayaing jackals who can't read here is a direct quote "Horizon is crooked and there is too much grain in the sky with vignetting. If thats the effect you wanted then you succeeded but it is not effective." THEN I said it was crap. WHY? because it didn't work. Learn some fuckin comprehension those who choose to act like chimps in a zoo and throw turds because it is a "good idea" at the time. If any of you think that I'll stop critiquing photos by this guy or any others then you are gonna be sadly mistaken this is not a mutual admiration society and if people can't take criticism then don't post pictures for people to critique them. > Fred....I support you 110%. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > more with you. The sooner Daniel stops posting his rubbish the better off > we will all be. I would hate to see what he deems his "photo of the year". Wanna go out Natalie? :) >> Fred....I support you 110%. >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Wanna go out Natalie? > :) Aren't you really Natalie?? >>> Fred....I support you 110%. >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Aren't you really Natalie?? Last time I checked I had dangly bits so I would have to say no. Weird fetish you have there :-) >>> Fred....I support you 110%. >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Aren't you really Natalie?? -------- It's impossible to tell. Natalie is posting from a genuine Optus account, Fred using subterfuge to conceal his identity and location. Based on troll behavior, if they were the same person, he would use a different obfuscation server rather than his own ISPs. He could be stupid but troll are generally highly intelligent individuals who just don't conform and behave the way they do out of the frustration caused when they can't get recognition themselves. There is one glaring similarity between Fred and Natalie. Both of them ignore any or all suggestions they should put up some of their photos for review. How could you not assume from the overwhelming silence on that front, that they both fear critical review of their work? So come on "Fred" show us your pics. Natalie... Show us your tits. You have yet to convince me you are actually a female, much less a photographer. >>>> Fred....I support you 110%. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Natalie... Show us your tits. You have yet to convince me you are > actually a female, much less a photographer. I use this server because my service provider (iinet) does not have good news feeds and not all posts get through. I pay to use this service. There is no subterfuge or anything else. as for showing people my pictures? That aint gonna happen in this forum because if you idiots can't read my original post where I gave explanations as to why I thought his photos were craap then you definitely cannot have sound mind and reason to critique anything here is what I said originally "Horizon is crooked and there is too much grain in the sky with vignetting. If thats the effect you wanted then you succeeded but it is not effective. " Then I said it was crap If you don't believe me then google it becaue the truth is out there. Then have a look at your responses to me. Of all the morons who took time out to take pot shots you are the most despicable of all. > I use this server because my service provider (iinet) does not > have good news feeds and not all posts get through. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Of all the morons who took time out to take pot shots you are the > most despicable of all. ------------ No Fred... Attempting to turn YOUR bad behavior around by blaming someone else is just more poor form from you. You just now tell us you don't want to give anyone here the opportunity to do to you what you have done to someone else. How bad is that? Cowardly if you ask me. That really is a despicable act. I take offence that someone using an Australian newsgroup from an Italian obfuscation server is heaping personal insults on a poster here and making all Australians look bad in the process. Do it in a group not country specific and you might be tolerated. Make my country look like it's full of nasty buggers and I'll take you on for it. You called him a fool and said his pictures are crap. You refuse to identify yourself, use a news server which conceals your IP address and now you get stuck into me for calling you to task for your disgusting behavior. Wake up to yourself, whoever you are. Even Google have begun to publish the source IP of posts. It's stopped newsgroup vandals like you in the past but you knew that when you signed on with the Anonymous Italian server, didn't you? You must have been a terrible worry to your mother. >> I use this server because my service provider (iinet) does not >> have good news feeds and not all posts get through. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > You must have been a terrible worry to your mother. Ok comprehension is your weak point so I'll repost what i have just posted to you because you are too stupid to understand. >>I use this server because my service provider (iinet) does not >> have good news feeds and not all posts get through. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> Of all the morons who took time out to take pot shots you are the >> most despicable of all. Now moron because you are one there is no denying that you are one, Address what i have said without the idiocy of emotive language like "you must have been a worry to your mother" and other nonsense like making Australians look bad" and address the points specifically. I don't want to hear prejudiced opinions because I'll dismiss them with the contempt they deserve like I have just now. Address my comments to the photographer >> "Horizon is crooked and there is too much grain in the sky with >> vignetting. If thats the effect you wanted then you succeeded but >> it is not effective. " Were my actual critiques fair or unfair? All the other stuff was a direct reaction to the small mindedness you jackals then portrayed because I dared to call that photo crap. Notice all the personal attacks you hypocrites then engaged in. You sir are the biggest hypocrite of all and will only concentrate on the fact I use a decent usenet server that can hold posts longer than a day and had a one time cost and will not allow posting of binaries which is an added bonus. If you can't get over your own predjudices then I worry for all Australian because you have shown the ugly side of australia , hypocritical, and close minded that will not tolerate a counter point however harsh it is. You sir are Unaustralian. >>> I use this server because my service provider (iinet) does not >>> have good news feeds and not all posts get through. [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > point however harsh it is. > You sir are Unaustralian. So: "Considering this fool posts really sh.t photos then yes it does. I actually feel quite superior critiquing this fool's pictures of the week because by posting them as picture of the week he thinks they are special and awaits praise which is undeserved." Your exact words. Calling me a "moron", is a personal attack on me. I care not from where you got the notion such behaviour is OK just as long as you can hide who you are. It's not and you really ought to stop it. So far you called the OP a fool. Me a moron and everyone else who thinks your behaviour is really bad, Jackals. In your corner is one lone poster who has - like you, elected to avoid letting someone else have to opportunity to make comments on her pictures. 2 cowards. This is very bad behaviour and certainly consistant with what the print media would refuse to publish for fear of legal action (which in the past has succeeded). So stop your deplorable behaviour and grow up. >> Now moron because you are one there is no denying that you are >> one, Address what i have said without the idiocy of emotive [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > the week because by posting them as picture of the week he thinks > they are special and awaits praise which is undeserved." Read above I SAID this as a reaction to the flaming I received for my initial post. > Your exact words. > > Calling me a "moron", is a personal attack on me. No it isn't it's a description of your mindset. > I care not from where you got the notion such behaviour is OK just > as long as you can hide who you are. It's not and you really ought > to stop it. There you go with the hiding thing again you are really an obsessive compulsive. As for my notion about my behaviour the shoe is also on the other foot with the amount of flaming I have received. It won't stop me it will only strengthen my resolve. > So far you called the OP a fool. Me a moron and everyone else who > thinks your behaviour is really bad, Jackals. In your corner is one > lone poster who has - like you, elected to avoid letting someone > else have to opportunity to make comments on her pictures. 2 > cowards. I told you before that what was said afterwards was a direct reaction to the flaming I received after posting reasons for why I thought his photos were crap. All you seem to focus on is that and my usenet server. Get over it and address my criticism of the phot Was the criticism unfair? Was his horizon crooked? was there excessive noise? Was there vignetting? did I not say that if he thought his photo was effective then he succeded but that imo it didn't? AFTER all that I said yet another crap photo. ALl the rest have been reactions to the moron brigade. I posted my reason why I would not post my pictures and it is a direct result of yours and the behavious of the other hyeana who jumped on the bandwagon. > This is very bad behaviour and certainly consistant with what the > print media would refuse to publish for fear of legal action (which > in the past has succeeded). So stop your deplorable behaviour and > grow up. Exactly what are you talking about here my misinformed friend? when you say this "This is very bad behaviour and certainly consistant with what the print media would refuse to publish for fear of legal action" What has this got to so with a usenet discussion about the severity of critique of a person's photos? I think you need to grow up because I'm very comfortable with myself. >>>>I use this server because my service provider (iinet) does not >>>>have good news feeds and not all posts get through. [quoted text clipped - 115 lines] > in the past has succeeded). So stop your deplorable behaviour and > grow up. since when does one become known as a FOOL just because they don't take great pics..... just because you are good at something (or not) does not mean everyone else is a fool. I sitll say iti s harsh and far less constructive than it could be. kosh >>>>> I use this server because my service provider (iinet) does not >>>>> have good news feeds and not all posts get through. [quoted text clipped - 116 lines] > > kosh Read my reply to Silent Lamb. <"no i didn't, yes you did too" conversation snipped> C'mon guys, drop it and move on. You're acting like the media...Or even worse, politicians. PS - "silent lamb" is, of course, Douglas MacDonald, so it's worth putting his remarks into that context.. (O: ><"no i didn't, yes you did too" conversation snipped> > >C'mon guys, drop it and move on. You're acting like the media...Or >even worse, politicians. I'm amazed that Fred didn't point out the credibility gap that someone using the handle "Silent Lamb" has when bitching about people not posting under their street names. I briefly thought of mentioning it but by then the stench of troll was a little too heavy in the air and thought it best to ignore it. And now we have someone in another thread semi-impersonating Daniel which will feed not only his attention-seeking need but his newly formed martyr complex as well. ("Sometimes I can't understand them, but I go forward..." Oh for the love of Mike...) Sigh, when will the madness end? >PS - "silent lamb" is, of course, Douglas MacDonald, so it's worth >putting his remarks into that context.. Ah. I can't say with certainty that you're correct, but it WOULD explain much. Guess this means another $500 "Dead or Alive" bounty on YOUR head, though... 8^> >><"no i didn't, yes you did too" conversation snipped> >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > explain much. Guess this means another $500 "Dead or Alive" bounty > on YOUR head, though... 8^> ------------ Ahh Yes... Mark Thomas or is it Charles Stevens? Neither of them, perhaps? Had to be lurking somewhere in the shadows of this thread. Odd that a man who used to call himself Charles Stevens going by the screen name of CHRLZ@GO.COM ("my childhood name") should now claim he has only ever been Mark Thomas. Curious that he has no Queensland driver's license in either name AND... is not on the Electoral roll or listed as a ratepayer in Helensvale or nearby areas where he purports to live. Cost me $1200 with a PI to discover Mr.Invisible is a fraudster as well as a liar and stalker. This is the fellow who used SA Government computers to pour out large amounts slander and defamation at me. He is the one who steals my images and puts them to his own use and the man I offered $500 cash reward for his real identity. It still stands. He can't collect it though... As he tried to do with his offer to "identify himself to my lawyer". LOL There. Not to be overlooked either, are his lies aimed at interfering with my business. His lies that I don't own any studios, galleries or shops and his spineless silence when I posted photos of them. Just because my lovely wife holds a Sunday exhibition of my photographs, to promote her and our daughter's craft business, he decided this was my "backyard" business. Wrong again but being wrong has never held him back before. Then there is his attempt to spread lies aimed at crippling my business ...that I was engaged in Copyright abuse with statements on my wife's web site encouraging that abuse. Ken Chandler pointed out how wrong he was but again, no apology, just more silence from him. And what about the defamation aimed at interfering with my work in National Parks? I have all the licenses and permits to photograph professionally in Australia's National Parks and recreational areas. Once again he lied and slandered me in a direct attempt to interfere with my business by saying I didn't have any permits and I was lying and committing fraud. Again spineless silence from the mongrel when I published the permits. And then there was his attempt to impersonate a Professional Photographer. Claiming to have worked as a "Pro" Wedding Photographer with medium format gear in South Australia but declining to provide any evidence of this with "I can't name the Photographer I worked for - family reasons". Odd that no one in South Australia's photographic community has any knowledge of him under either name. No camera store operator, no studio operator. He lied about that lot too... Silence from him again. It's a very sad event when nasty lying scum like this piece of work, can steal from, slander and defame legitimate business people and those people affected, have to waste their own money tracking the bastard down and more again, to sue them for their lies and the effect they have. The really sinful part of this is not so much the effect his lies and defamation had on me... But the effect on the community in general. In the past people like him were easy to discover. Now with the Internet and ISP's refusing cooperation without a court order and host companies like Yahoo refusing to act without a US court ruling, these scum of the earth mongrels are pretty much free to do as they please. It cost a Perth fellow nearly $100,000 to track one down and silence him. Only to have him re-surface using anonymous news-servers and get it going all over again. Usenet will miss me for about as long as it takes for a swallow to change direction. But scum like this mongrel will have a lasting effect on how we all use the Internet. One day he'll slip up and I'll be waiting. Douglas MacDonald Yes, I change my screen name regularly. My IP address never changes. All my posts have properly defined headers. Completely off-topic, but just to clear my name... All of the mindless rubbish posted above by Douglas MacDonald, was dealt with in some detail here: http://groups.google.com/group/aus.photo/browse_frm/thread/924c66bcc37fd2de/ In summary, as is becoming very well known on this group- ..he is a few snags short of a barbeque. > Completely off-topic, but just to clear my name... All of the mindless > rubbish posted above by Douglas MacDonald, was dealt with in some [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > ..he is a few snags short of a barbeque. And this is the tosser who posted as silent lamb and had the nerve to have a go about me having a go at a frog posting to an aussie newsgroup? I'd like to meet this tosser in person I think. >> <"no i didn't, yes you did too" conversation snipped> >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > but by then the stench of troll was a little too heavy in the air and > thought it best to ignore it. I don't give a toss whether people hide their Identity which is why i don't go on about that. All I do is critique people's pictures as I see fit and will not back out of a shitfight if anyone is stupid enough to start one with me. wtf is Douglas Macdonald anyways? Name means nothing to me. >> I'm amazed that Fred didn't point out the credibility gap that someone >> using the handle "Silent Lamb" has when bitching about people not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I don't give a toss whether people hide their Identity which is why i >don't go on about that. That was kinda my point though. Some groups are better than others, but overall Usenet still has more dysfunctional, maladjusted and anti-social individuals than any institution which doesn't have the words "For The Criminally Insane" somewhere in its title. The amount of explanation that you owe anyone for posting without your full name or identity is therefore exactly diddly-squat. All Usenet is anonymous to some extent, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to maintain a single "identity" within a group. That way you start to get a feeling over time for who you can listen to, and who should be disregarded. People who change their screen names regularly, often without reference to their previous ones, generally do so for the following reasons: 1/ They want to dissociate themselves from their past posts, particularly if their past posts have given them "credibility issues"; 2/ No-one else is supporting them in an argument, so they just make up some supporters (a.k.a. sock puppets); 3/ To dodge kill files; and/or 4/ They identify a little too closely with the movie character "Sybil". For mine, a poster's credibility plummets towards zero when they play the multiple identity game, and it drops even further when they indulge in horse-hockey like "I always post from the same IP address". Because, like, before anyone reads a post they should ALWAYS trace a post back to an I.P. address to see where it's coming from (especially if it's just the address of a commercial news server like BigPond's), am I right or am I right? Not. As far as I'm concerned it's little more than a con, and I for one REALLY don't appreciate it when someone does it. "No, I'm not the person who made the loopy posts before, I'm some NEW person who you should take seriously this time, promise." >wtf is Douglas Macdonald anyways? >Name means nothing to me. Depends how long you've been around the group as either lurker or poster. I'd already consigned his postings to the "bizarre" realm, particularly after some of the threads in which he had guano-fights with Mark Thomas. I'll briefly scan his posts when they appear in case there might be some useful information in them, but seldom pay them much heed. I don't know either of the guys, and truthfully I don't know who's right or who's wrong (or, as is more typical, where the middle ground lies), but in the threads I've seen (which isn't all of them, I suspect, but enough of them) Mark Thomas has seemed to be fairly reasonable while D-Mac, as he usually calls himself, seems to be out there beyond Pluto somewhere. Maybe, MAAAAAYYYBE if he has a legitimate grievance against Thomas then he's just upset which is making his postings sound a little... "odd". But it's been going on a little too long for that to be a reasonable explanation. You can get a feel for this by reading the posting that he made in this thread after Thomas "outed" him. But be quick, because he's put an X-No-Archive flag on the post. (A flag which, incidentally, has NO valid or legitimate use on Usenet as far as I'm concerned.) That means that the post won't be archived on Google Groups, which means that all the allegations that he makes in it will vanish into the electronic ether in the not too distant future. This is also a measure of credibility in my opinion; if I see someone using that flag, someone who is therefore not prepared to stand by their words into the future, then again my opinion of their credibility drops faster than the U-Boat did in the movie "das Boot". All this is of course simply MY take on things, and it goes almost without saying that each Usenet user is entitled to make up their own mind on such issues. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.